Google Android en Samsung Mobile · Kwetsbaarheden Verholpen
Affects Nationaal Cyber Security Centrum AndroidSource GCVE Database
Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.9 High.
Data as of 5 Nov 2026, 16:35 UTC
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N- Attack Vector
- Local
- Attack Complexity
- Low
- Privileges Required
- High
- User Interaction
- None
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- None
Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.
- Attack Vector: Local
- The vulnerable component is not bound to the network stack and the attacker’s path is via read/write/execute capabilities. Either: the attacker exploits the vulnerability by accessing the target system locally (e.g., keyboard, console), or remotely (e.g., SSH); or the attacker relies on User Interaction by another person to perform actions required to exploit the vulnerability (e.g., tricking a legitimate user into opening a malicious document).
- Attack Complexity: Low
- Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
- Privileges Required: High
- The attacker is authorized with (i.e., requires) privileges that provide significant (e.g., administrative) control over the vulnerable component that could affect component-wide settings and files.
- User Interaction: None
- The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.
- Scope: Changed
- An exploited vulnerability can affect resources beyond the security scope managed by the security authority of the vulnerable component. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are different and managed by different security authorities.
- Confidentiality: High
- There is total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the impacted component being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact.
- Integrity: High
- There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the impacted component. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.
- Availability: None
- There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.
Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.
Exploitation evidence
Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 14 Jan 2026
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponized: no evidence on record.
No public exploit code indexed in Metasploit or Exploit-DB
Exploited in the wildExploited: no evidence on record.
Not in CISA KEV and no source reports exploitation
Observed by OffSeq MirageSeen by Mirage: no evidence on record.
No attack traffic recorded by OffSeq Mirage sensors
A missing step is not evidence of safety. Sources: cve.org (opens in a new tab), the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 5 Nov 2026.
- Disclosed
- The CVE record is public on cve.org. Its publication is t = 0.
- Detectable
- A public nuclei template can find exposed instances, for defenders and attackers alike.
- Weaponized
- A Metasploit exploit module or Exploit-DB entry exists (Metasploit scanner modules do not count), or CISA SSVC or the CVSS exploit maturity reports a public proof of concept.
- Exploited in the wild
- CISA KEV lists it, CISA SSVC rates exploitation active, or a source reports attacks.
- Observed by OffSeq Mirage
- OffSeq Mirage honeypot sensors recorded attack traffic for this CVE, or found exposed hosts without attack traffic.
Moments are spaced evenly, not to scale; a dashed line marks a gap of six months or more. Deltas count from t = 0. Sources that give only a date (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, or a time of exactly 00:00Z) read “same day” rather than hours. Metasploit modules carry the flaw’s disclosure date, not their release date, and nuclei templates carry no date, so both appear above but not on the timeline.
What to do
Affected software
| Product | Affected | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| ArmNeoverse-N2 | Affected
| Fixed in– |
| ArmNeoverse-V3AE | Affected
| Fixed in– |
| ArmNeoverse-V3 | Affected
| Fixed in– |
| ArmNeoverse-V2 | Affected
| Fixed in– |
| ArmCortex-X925 | Affected
| Fixed in– |
| ArmCortex-X4 | Affected
| Fixed in– |
Description
Google heeft kwetsbaarheden verholpen in Android. Samsung heeft de voor Samsung Mobile relevante kwetsbaarheden verholpen in hun producten.
- CWE-226Sensitive Information in Resource Not Removed Before Reuse (opens in a new tab)
Base weakness
The product releases a resource such as memory or a file so that it can be made available for reuse, but it does not clear or "zeroize" the information contained in the resource before the product performs a critical state transition or makes the resource available for reuse by other entities.
Architecture and Design · Implementation
During critical state transitions, information not needed in the next state should be removed or overwritten with fixed patterns (such as all 0's) or random data, before the transition to the next state.
Architecture and Design · Implementation
When releasing, de-allocating, or deleting a resource, overwrite its data and relevant metadata with fixed patterns or random data. Be cautious about complex resource types whose underlying representation might be non-contiguous or change at a low level, such as how a file might be split into different chunks on a…
Implementation
Be careful using vfork() and fork() in security sensitive code. The process state will not be cleaned up and will contain traces of data from past use.
- OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
- Attack patterns
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
- CWE-451User Interface (UI) Misrepresentation of Critical Information (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessOWASP Top 10 A06:2025: Insecure Design (opens in a new tab)
The user interface (UI) does not properly represent critical information to the user, allowing the information - or its source - to be obscured or spoofed. This is often a component in phishing attacks.
Implementation · Input Validation
Perform data validation (e.g. syntax, length, etc.) before interpreting the data.
Architecture and Design · Output Encoding
Create a strategy for presenting information, and plan for how to display unusual characters.
- OWASP Cheat Sheets
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
- CWE-362Concurrent Execution using Shared Resource with Improper Synchronization (Race Condition) (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: MediumOWASP Top 10 A06:2025: Insecure Design (opens in a new tab)
The product contains a concurrent code sequence that requires temporary, exclusive access to a shared resource, but a timing window exists in which the shared resource can be modified by another code sequence operating concurrently.
Architecture and Design
In languages that support it, use synchronization primitives. Only wrap these around critical code to minimize the impact on performance.
Architecture and Design
Use thread-safe capabilities such as the data access abstraction in Spring.
Architecture and Design
Minimize the usage of shared resources in order to remove as much complexity as possible from the control flow and to reduce the likelihood of unexpected conditions occurring.
- OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
- CWE-416Use After Free (opens in a new tab)
Variant weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #7
The product reuses or references memory after it has been freed. At some point afterward, the memory may be allocated again and saved in another pointer, while the original pointer references a location somewhere within the new allocation. Any operations using the original pointer are no longer valid because the memory "belongs" to the code that operates on the new pointer.
Architecture and Design · Language Selection
Choose a language that provides automatic memory management.
Implementation · Attack Surface Reduction
When freeing pointers, be sure to set them to NULL once they are freed. However, the utilization of multiple or complex data structures may lower the usefulness of this strategy.
- OWASP Cheat Sheets
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
- CWE-862Missing Authorization (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #4OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product does not perform an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action.
Architecture and Design
Divide the product into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Reduce the attack surface by carefully mapping roles with data and functionality. Use role-based access control (RBAC) to enforce the roles at the appropriate boundaries.
Architecture and Design
Ensure that access control checks are performed related to the business logic. These checks may be different than the access control checks that are applied to more generic resources such as files, connections, processes, memory, and database records.
Architecture and Design · Libraries or Frameworks
Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
- OWASP Cheat Sheets
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
- CWE-843Access of Resource Using Incompatible Type (Type Confusion) (opens in a new tab)
Base weakness
The product allocates or initializes a resource such as a pointer, object, or variable using one type, but it later accesses that resource using a type that is incompatible with the original type.
- CWE-190Integer Overflow or Wraparound (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: Medium
The product performs a calculation that can produce an integer overflow or wraparound when the logic assumes that the resulting value will always be larger than the original value. This occurs when an integer value is incremented to a value that is too large to store in the associated representation. When this occurs, the value may become a very small or negative number.
Requirements
Ensure that all protocols are strictly defined, such that all out-of-bounds behavior can be identified simply, and require strict conformance to the protocol.
Requirements · Language Selection
Use a language that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
Architecture and Design · Libraries or Frameworks
Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
- OWASP Cheat Sheets
- Attack patterns
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
- CWE-787Out-of-bounds Write (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #5
The product writes data past the end, or before the beginning, of the intended buffer.
Requirements · Language Selection
Use a language that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
Architecture and Design · Libraries or Frameworks
Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
Operation · Build and Compilation · Environment Hardening
Use automatic buffer overflow detection mechanisms that are offered by certain compilers or compiler extensions. Examples include: the Microsoft Visual Studio /GS flag, Fedora/Red Hat FORTIFY_SOURCE GCC flag, StackGuard, and ProPolice, which provide various mechanisms including canary-based detection and range/index…
- OWASP Cheat Sheets
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
- CWE-121Stack-based Buffer Overflow (opens in a new tab)
Variant weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #14
The product writes past the end of a buffer that was allocated on the stack.
Operation · Build and Compilation · Environment Hardening
Use automatic buffer overflow detection mechanisms that are offered by certain compilers or compiler extensions. Examples include: the Microsoft Visual Studio /GS flag, Fedora/Red Hat FORTIFY_SOURCE GCC flag, StackGuard, and ProPolice, which provide various mechanisms including canary-based detection and range/index…
Architecture and Design
Use an abstraction library to abstract away risky APIs. Not a complete solution.
Implementation
Implement and perform bounds checking on input.
- OWASP Cheat Sheets
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
- CWE-1285Improper Validation of Specified Index, Position, or Offset in Input (opens in a new tab)
Base weakness
The product receives input that is expected to specify an index, position, or offset into an indexable resource such as a buffer or file, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the specified index/position/offset has the required properties.
Implementation · Input Validation
Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
- OWASP Cheat Sheets
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
- CWE-617Reachable Assertion (opens in a new tab)
Base weakness
The product contains an assert() or similar statement that can be triggered by an attacker, which leads to an application exit or other behavior that is more severe than necessary.
Implementation
If the assertion statement is required (e.g., for security or reliability), change the invoking code to avoid the conditions that trigger the assertion.
Implementation
Consider changing the assertion to some other less "fatal" error. This might not be easy to implement, since other code may be needed to handle the error.
Implementation
Make sensitive open/close operations non-reachable from directly user-controlled data (e.g. open/close resources)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
- CWE-129Improper Validation of Array Index (opens in a new tab)
Variant weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighOWASP Top 10 A05:2025: Injection (opens in a new tab)
The product uses untrusted input when calculating or using an array index, but the product does not validate or incorrectly validates the index to ensure the index references a valid position within the array.
Architecture and Design · Input Validation
Use an input validation framework such as Struts or the OWASP ESAPI Validation API. Note that using a framework does not automatically address all input validation problems; be mindful of weaknesses that could arise from misusing the framework itself (CWE-1173).
Architecture and Design
For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side, in order to avoid CWE-602. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks…
Requirements · Language Selection
Use a language that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
- OWASP Cheat Sheets
- Attack patterns
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
- CWE-125Out-of-bounds Read (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessCWE Top 25 (2025): #8
The product reads data past the end, or before the beginning, of the intended buffer.
Implementation · Input Validation
Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
Architecture and Design · Language Selection
Use a language that provides appropriate memory abstractions.
- OWASP Cheat Sheets
- Attack patterns
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
- CWE-1284Improper Validation of Specified Quantity in Input (opens in a new tab)
Base weakness
The product receives input that is expected to specify a quantity (such as size or length), but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the quantity has the required properties.
Implementation · Input Validation
Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
- OWASP Cheat Sheets
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
- CWE-347Improper Verification of Cryptographic Signature (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A04:2025: Cryptographic Failures (opens in a new tab)
The product does not verify, or incorrectly verifies, the cryptographic signature for data.
- OWASP Cheat Sheets
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
- CWE-120Buffer Copy without Checking Size of Input (Classic Buffer Overflow) (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #11
The product copies an input buffer to an output buffer without verifying that the size of the input buffer is less than the size of the output buffer.
Requirements · Language Selection
Use a language that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
Architecture and Design · Libraries or Frameworks
Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
Operation · Build and Compilation · Environment Hardening
Use automatic buffer overflow detection mechanisms that are offered by certain compilers or compiler extensions. Examples include: the Microsoft Visual Studio /GS flag, Fedora/Red Hat FORTIFY_SOURCE GCC flag, StackGuard, and ProPolice, which provide various mechanisms including canary-based detection and range/index…
- OWASP Cheat Sheets
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
- CWE-653Improper Isolation or Compartmentalization (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessOWASP Top 10 A06:2025: Insecure Design (opens in a new tab)
The product does not properly compartmentalize or isolate functionality, processes, or resources that require different privilege levels, rights, or permissions.
Architecture and Design
Break up privileges between different modules, objects, or entities. Minimize the interfaces between modules and require strong access control between them.
- OWASP Cheat Sheets
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
- CWE-123Write-what-where Condition (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: High
Any condition where the attacker has the ability to write an arbitrary value to an arbitrary location, often as the result of a buffer overflow.
Architecture and Design · Language Selection
Use a language that provides appropriate memory abstractions.
Operation
Use OS-level preventative functionality integrated after the fact. Not a complete solution.
- OWASP Cheat Sheets
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
- CWE-825Expired Pointer Dereference (opens in a new tab)
Base weakness
The product dereferences a pointer that contains a location for memory that was previously valid, but is no longer valid.
Architecture and Design
Choose a language that provides automatic memory management.
Implementation
When freeing pointers, be sure to set them to NULL once they are freed. However, the utilization of multiple or complex data structures may lower the usefulness of this strategy.
- OWASP Cheat Sheets
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
- CWE-823Use of Out-of-range Pointer Offset (opens in a new tab)
Base weakness
The product performs pointer arithmetic on a valid pointer, but it uses an offset that can point outside of the intended range of valid memory locations for the resulting pointer.
- OWASP Cheat Sheets
- Attack patterns
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
- CWE-476Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-805Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-441Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-22Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-364Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-248Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-822Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-126Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-89Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-122Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-415Name not in the CWE catalogue (opens in a new tab)
- GCVE source
- db.gcve.eu
- Csaf Category
- csaf_security_advisory
- Csaf Version
- 2.0
- Publisher
- Nationaal Cyber Security Centrum
- Advisory ID
- NCSC-2026-0467
- CVE Count
- 221
- Additional Cves
- CVE-2025-22424, CVE-2025-22426, CVE-2025-22436, CVE-2025-22442, CVE-2025-26433, CVE-2025-38627, CVE-2025-48600, CVE-2026-0053, CVE-2026-6726, CVE-2026-9034, CVE-2026-9040, CVE-2026-11891, CVE-2026-15466, CVE-2026-16280, CVE-2026-18629, CVE-2026-19199, CVE-2026-20499, CVE-2026-20519, CVE-2026-20520, CVE-2026-20521, CVE-2026-20522, CVE-2026-20523, CVE-2026-20524, CVE-2026-20525, CVE-2026-20526, CVE-2026-20527, CVE-2026-20545, CVE-2026-20546, CVE-2026-20547, CVE-2026-20548, CVE-2026-20549, CVE-2026-20553, CVE-2026-20554, CVE-2026-20555, CVE-2026-20556, CVE-2026-20557, CVE-2026-20558, CVE-2026-20559, CVE-2026-20560, CVE-2026-20561, CVE-2026-20562, CVE-2026-20563, CVE-2026-20564, CVE-2026-20565, CVE-2026-20586, CVE-2026-20589, CVE-2026-22165, CVE-2026-23184, CVE-2026-23240, CVE-2026-25285, CVE-2026-25286, CVE-2026-25287, CVE-2026-25291, CVE-2026-25301, CVE-2026-25302, CVE-2026-28580, CVE-2026-28586, CVE-2026-28588, CVE-2026-28597, CVE-2026-28621, CVE-2026-28632, CVE-2026-28643, CVE-2026-28645, CVE-2026-28665, CVE-2026-31533, CVE-2026-41155, CVE-2026-43284, CVE-2026-43499, CVE-2026-45199, CVE-2026-45201, CVE-2026-45204, CVE-2026-45514, CVE-2026-45522, CVE-2026-46232, CVE-2026-46242, CVE-2026-49912, CVE-2026-49922, CVE-2026-49923, CVE-2026-49924, CVE-2026-49925, CVE-2026-49931, CVE-2026-49934, CVE-2026-49935, CVE-2026-53256, CVE-2026-55257, CVE-2026-55261, CVE-2026-55262, CVE-2026-55263, CVE-2026-55264, CVE-2026-55271, CVE-2026-55272, CVE-2026-55275, CVE-2026-55283, CVE-2026-55287, CVE-2026-55288, CVE-2026-55289, CVE-2026-55292, CVE-2026-57537, CVE-2026-57545, CVE-2026-57546, CVE-2026-57547, CVE-2026-57548, CVE-2026-57549, CVE-2026-57554, CVE-2026-58814, CVE-2026-58817, CVE-2026-58821, CVE-2026-58824, CVE-2026-58825, CVE-2026-58826, CVE-2026-58827, CVE-2026-58828, CVE-2026-58829, CVE-2026-58836, CVE-2026-58837, CVE-2026-58838, CVE-2026-58844, CVE-2026-58845, CVE-2026-58847, CVE-2026-58853, CVE-2026-58857, CVE-2026-58866, CVE-2026-58867, CVE-2026-58868, CVE-2026-58870, CVE-2026-58871, CVE-2026-58875, CVE-2026-58876, CVE-2026-58877, CVE-2026-58879, CVE-2026-58882, CVE-2026-58883, CVE-2026-58884, CVE-2026-58885, CVE-2026-58886, CVE-2026-58933, CVE-2026-58934, CVE-2026-58936, CVE-2026-58937, CVE-2026-58938, CVE-2026-58942, CVE-2026-58943, CVE-2026-58944, CVE-2026-58945, CVE-2026-58946, CVE-2026-58949, CVE-2026-58951, CVE-2026-58953, CVE-2026-58955, CVE-2026-58956, CVE-2026-58957, CVE-2026-58958, CVE-2026-58961, CVE-2026-58962, CVE-2026-58963, CVE-2026-58964, CVE-2026-58965, CVE-2026-58966, CVE-2026-58968, CVE-2026-58969, CVE-2026-58970, CVE-2026-58971, CVE-2026-58974, CVE-2026-58975, CVE-2026-58976, CVE-2026-58977, CVE-2026-58978, CVE-2026-58979, CVE-2026-58984, CVE-2026-58985, CVE-2026-58986, CVE-2026-58988, CVE-2026-58989, CVE-2026-58990, CVE-2026-58994, CVE-2026-58995, CVE-2026-58997, CVE-2026-59000, CVE-2026-59001, CVE-2026-59002, CVE-2026-59003, CVE-2026-59004, CVE-2026-59005, CVE-2026-59006, CVE-2026-59007, CVE-2026-59008, CVE-2026-59010, CVE-2026-59011, CVE-2026-59012, CVE-2026-59014, CVE-2026-59015, CVE-2026-59016, CVE-2026-59020, CVE-2026-59021, CVE-2026-59022, CVE-2026-59028, CVE-2026-59031, CVE-2026-59042, CVE-2026-59043, CVE-2026-59044, CVE-2026-59045, CVE-2026-59046, CVE-2026-59047, CVE-2026-59048, CVE-2026-64011, CVE-2026-64427, CVE-2026-64560, CVE-2026-65076, CVE-2026-65586, CVE-2026-65587, CVE-2026-66086, CVE-2026-66113, CVE-2026-66114, CVE-2026-74912, CVE-2026-79405, CVE-2026-80013, CVE-2026-80335, CVE-2026-80336, CVE-2026-80604, CVE-2026-89774
References
Community reviews
Related threats
- WatchGuard Fireware OS · Kwetsbaarheden VerholpenUnratedVulnerability
- Dell PowerProtect Data Domain · Kwetsbaarheden VerholpenHighVulnerability
- Cisco Expressway Series · Kwetsbaarheden VerholpenHighVulnerability
- Nationaal Cyber Security Centrum Juniper Networks · Kwetsbaarheden VerholpenUnratedVulnerability
- Apache HTTP Server · Kwetsbaarheden VerholpenUnratedVulnerability